PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 10100130

Contraceptive introduction reconsidered: a new methodology for policy and program development.

Abstract

Although new contraceptive technology has the potential for providing women with expanded options for fertility control, the historical record of international family planning shows that, in practice, introduction of new methods has not always broadened reproductive choice. Using the example of introduction of intrauterine devices into the Indian family planning program in the 1960s, we show that an exclusive focus on the technology itself is problematic and argue that methodologies are needed that relate introduction of new methods to user needs and program capacities. We summarize key findings from the Indonesian experience with Norplant introduction. Although an effort was made to address problems with previous approaches, major deficiencies in both the technical and interpersonal dimensions of care arose when the implants were made broadly available within the program. We subsequently present a methodology for contraceptive introduction developed by the World Health Organization. This methodology emphasizes the social and institutional context in which technology is used and suggests a participatory and research-based approach to program and policy development. We illustrate results from this new approach in its implementation in Vietnam and suggest areas for further evaluation.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

R Simmons, P Fajans. 1999. Contraceptive introduction reconsidered: a new methodology for policy and program development.. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.1999.8.163

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Biphasic versus triphasic oral contraceptives for contraception.

BACKGROUND: Side effects caused by oral contraceptives discourage compliance with, and continuation of, oral contraceptives. A suggested disadvantage of biphasic compared to triphasic oral contraceptive pills is an increase in breakthrough bleeding. We conducted this systematic review to examine this potential disadvantage. OBJECTIVES: To compare biphasic with triphasic oral contraceptives in terms of efficacy, cycle control, and discontinuation due to side effects. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, POPLINE, LILACS and CENTRAL. We searched the reference lists of relevant articles and book chapters. We also contacted the authors of relevant studies and pharmaceutical companies in Europe and the USA. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials comparing any biphasic with any triphasic oral contraceptive when used to prevent pregnancy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We examined the studies found during the searches for possible inclusion and assessed methodological quality using Cochrane guidelines. We contacted the authors of included studies and of possibly randomized studies for supplemental information about the methods and outcomes. We entered the data into RevMan. We calculated Peto odds ratios for incidence of discontinuation due to medical reasons, intermenstrual bleeding, and absence of withdrawal bleeding. MAIN RESULTS: Only two trials of limited quality met our inclusion criteria. Larranaga 1978 compared two biphasic pills and one triphasic pill, each containing levonorgestrel and ethinyl estradiol. No important differences emerged, and the frequency of discontinuation due to medical problems was similar with all three pills. Percival-Smith 1990 compared a biphasic pill containing norethindrone (Ortho 10/11) with a triphasic pill containing levonorgestrel (Triphasil) and with another triphasic containing norethindrone (Ortho 7/7/7). The biphasic pill had inferior cycle control compared with the levonorgestrel triphasic. The odds ratio of cycles with intermenstrual bleeding was 1.7 (95% CI 1.3 to 2.2) for the biphasic compared with the triphasic levonorgestrel pill. The odds ratio of cycles without withdrawal bleeding was 6.5 (95% CI 3.1 to 13). In contrast, cycle control with the biphasic pill was comparable to that of the triphasic containing the same progestin (norethindrone). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence is limited and the internal validity of these trials is questionable. Given the high losses to follow up, these reports may even be considered observational. Given that caveat, the biphasic pill containing norethindrone was associated with inferior cycle control compared with the triphasic pill containing levonorgestrel. The choice of progestin may be more important than the phasic regimen in determining bleeding patterns.

Contraception↗